Battle of "number four" US cities:SF, DC, Houston or Boston?

[Fastphilly]

Originally Posted by mrfoe

Well LA is more known around the world for starters.

Anybody in the civilized world with at least a elementary school education has heard of both. The GGB is as familiar with San Francisco as the Hollywood sign is in Los Angeles.

If you mean LA is a more true international city because of it's population then I don't know what to tell you. I guess having a few million more detached homes in the outer suburban areas of central LA puts it over the top

They both have everything needed to be major players on the international stage and both have the amenities that qualify as world class destinations.

People are so fixated on population and I know you didn't say that but I'm pretty sure that's what you are using. I've seen that used quite a bit on these forums.

[mrfoe]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

In terms of medical tech, Houston is still a very minor player.

Well Houston is young. It still has a ways to go. Maybe 100 years from now Houston will be a major player.

[Deluusions]

Originally Posted by mrfoe

Well Houston is young. It still has a ways to go. Maybe 100 years from now Houston will be a major player.

The fact that you thought Houston was more important than San Francisco? Although Houston will definitely become a major player in the future I believe, that city is growing.

[mrfoe]

Originally Posted by Deluusions

The fact that you thought Houston was more important than San Francisco? Although Houston will definitely become a major player in the future I believe, that city is growing.

Well I made a mistake. San Francisco is more important than Houston.

[mrfoe]

What about Boston compared to Houston. I know Boston is more historical.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by EverestClimb

Only in sheer numbers, not quality

Finance, media, publishing, advertising, fashion…?